On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr> wrote:
> * missing upstream: I think that fedorahosted is not right, a distro
> neutral place should in my opinion be better. I also think that it
> should be coordinated with other distros. In my opinion discussing
> about it on the new distributions list and announcing on that list
> should be interesting. And once things are settled, I think that there
> should be an obligation for the fedora maintainers to use that new
> hosting (or another, but this one would be the classical one).
Obligating anyone to do anything with regard to how they choose to set
up what is essentially a new fork of a dead codebase is
absolutely..wrong.
If you want to always require that a codebase in the Fedora repository
has an identifiable upstream source location that's reasonable. But
if someone decides to use fedorahosting to revive what is a
demonstrably dead upstream..then that's their choice...just its their
choice to use launchpad or sf.net or google or whatever they want. We
cannot mandate that the use or avoid any particular hosting service.
Nor can we obligate maintainers in other distros to work with our
maiintainer to find a suitable 'neutral' host. Once you are already
in a fractured package situation across distros with no clear
upstream.. you are essentially in a forked codebase environment
already. We can't obligate developers of forked codebases to work
together upstream of our distribution...that's a particularly
pointless thing to mandate.
If the CLA burden for fedorahosting is too much, then the individual
can decide to host it elsewhere... but that is an individual choice.
This project's packaging policy should not get involved in deciding
which hosting services are 'the best' choices for open development
needs.
-jef"from now on all packages must have sources located at sf.net"spaleta